God and Evolution
            Copyright (c) 1994-1998 by Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

This is a collection of frequently asked questions and answers about the
compatibility of belief in evolution and God from talk origins. This text
presupposes the reader's belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but many
answers are general enough to include most religions. There is no attempt
to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the validity of any religion,
as that is not the intent. Please contact me at kv07@iastate.edu with any
questions or suggestions.

1. Definitions

Science
A method of determine how the universe works by use of the scientific
method.

Scientific method
The process of proposing a hypothesis, and then testing its accuracy by
collecting data on events the hypothesis predicts. If the predictions
match the new data the hypothesis is supported. Generally the best
supported hypothesis is considered correct.

Evolution
The fact the frequency of the apperance of alleles in a population of
organisms changes over time.

Allele
The pieces of DNA that cause a particular trait, ie. "blue eyes".

The theory of evolution
A number of theories that explain, to the best of current knowledge, by
what mechanisms evolution occurs.

The theory of common descent
The theory that all living creatures on earth share a common, remote
ancestor. More specifically, given any two living creatures there was a
creature that is ancestor to both.

Creationism
One of several beliefs that incorporate a literal interpretation of
Genesis. There are variations that allow some figurative
interpretation.

Young Earth Creationism
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be 24 hour
events, and that by saying animals reproduce "after their kind"
evolution is precluded.

Old Earth Creationism
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be figurative
lengths of time, and the time scales given by geologists are generally
correct. However, the special creation of man precludes common descent.

Theistic Evolution
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which the story line is considered as
an explanation for the why and who of creation, but not the exact
method. The purpose of this FAQ is to show that this position is not
contradictory.

2. Evolution and Religion

Q1. Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the
first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like
gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one
first must find some empirical test that gives different results
depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be
predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.

Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually
presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being
is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs
cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under
the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St.
Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.

Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be
tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that
contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct
prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean
that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory
contradicts something.

Q2. Isn't evolution a religion?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can
determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these
tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the
current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to
alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows
the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.

Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that
usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not
the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as
scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact
accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles,
but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes
scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of
gold.

So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other
scientific theory.

Q3. Does evolution contradict creationism?

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common
descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say
why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic
underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in
it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent
chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal
interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical
account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only,
point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and
creationists.

For more information on several different interpretations you can get
James Kieffer's commentary which considers several different ways of
looking Genesis, including the literal interpretation. Just send email
to LISTSERV@asuvm.inre.asu.edu with the single line message "GET GEN01
RUFF". Repeat this for GEN02 and GEN03 to get the complete commentary.

Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of
Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever
been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by
God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of
Genesis can be disproven.

Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the
story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible
wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and
historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not
make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the
Bible would remain.

3. Evolution and God

Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a
guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific
interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal
interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of
God.

There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in
evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until
the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation
is a valid one within evolution.

Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion
and walked away?

While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one
who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents
such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was
not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution
could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because
people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing
to observe.

Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything
at once?

Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the
universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable
from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason,
otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that
is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.

Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean
that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of
what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that
evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have
happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.

4. Evolution and Proof

Q9. Nobody can really prove anything anyway.

Except, of course, in mathematics. However, science does not require
absolute proof, otherwise science textbooks would be empty. Science
works by use of the scientific method: explanations are found, and
tests made to tell which ones are correct. Evolution has passed
thousands of tests, many of which separated it from theories
indistinguishable to non-biologists.

Few people are aware, for instance, that Darwin's original hypothesis
predicted the existence of genetic information. As said before, even if
the theory is not correct in every detail, it is very close to the
truth. Chris Colby's FAQ gives a clear picture of this.

Q10. Theories have been proven wrong in the past, why not evolution?

When Einstein proposed general relativity, he revolutionized physics.
The theory replaced most of Newton's laws of physics. General
relativity, though, still incorporates Newton's laws. This is due to
the enormous number of observations and tests that Newton's laws had
passed, so any new theory would have to account for them also.

Similarly, if another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must
somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new
theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so
well. Creationism, then, is not a possible replacement.

Q11. Doesn't evolution promote evil?

Even if evolution did do this, it would not be a reason to assume it is
wrong. Chemistry is responsible for millions of deaths every year, but
we do not reject its findings because of this. How people use a theory
is not a judgment of its accuracy.

Fortunately we do not face this dilemma. Evolution does not say what is
right and what is wrong, but merely what has happened. A historical
account of the sacking of Rome does not say that the act of sacking
Rome is good or bad, just that it happened. Similarly evolution does
not say that any conclusions people might draw from it are good or bad.

While many people have claimed the theory of evolution supports their
injustice, never forget that many people have done the same with the
Bible. One person's opinion should not be considered the whole truth.

Q12. So what would I need to have creationism accepted scientifically?

Read Chris Colby's FAQ for some evidence that must be explained. Also
you need to propose a test that would give different results depending
on whether creation or evolution is true. Most important, however, is
the willingness to abide by the results, even if they disprove
creationism.

              Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links
  The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the
              Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates

Back to Idle Thoughts Are Often True